Re: A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace - We all should read it
⭐ Merited by JayJuanGee (1)
Maybe you can provide more insights here or at least what's your impression because in my opinion, David Chaum is a very interesting person.
How can someone get his own coin so wrong while being around in crypto for DECADES?
Then he returned with a new coin which, again, failed...How can someone get his own coin so wrong while being around in crypto for DECADES?
So, I don't blame Chaum for failing.
It's like try and error. He made valuable contributions despite failing.
But I'm quite disappointed how he launched and designed his new coin, xx-coin. Because we know he can do better, much better.
He abandoned everything what made Bitcoin so successful.
I have thought a lot about it why Chaum's coin failed and a few explanations I got are:
- He didn't made the decision. Maybe he hired some stupid marketing guys and they don't have any clue about a good crypto currecy. And his marketing guys advised Chaum very badly (probably).
- It's a trap! Maybe he's just testing waters to see how to make a perfect launch (unlikely because he collected VC funds).
- He's just clueless himself how to compete against several 10k shitcoins and after Bitcoin was launched over 15 years ago, crypto industry has changed a lot. And he messed it up...
...
I don't know...
I think what best describes these situations and also Chaum's fate is life's irony.
Most likely it is, dear GazetaBitcoin. There is nothing anarchist about Bitcoin. In fact Bitcoin is the most governed system in the world. There are tens of thousands of law enforcement with zero corruption or possibility of corruption called full nodes that are watching this system 24/7 to keep it healthy and clean of any corruption.
Actually, I have to disagree here. According to Wikipedia, "Anarchy is a society without a government. It may also refer to a society or group of people that entirely rejects a set hierarchy". This is exactly what happens inside Bitcoin network -- the nodes do not have any central authority to govern them. Each chooses to be online or offline. Nobody can coerce the nodes to run or not.
I would differentiate between good governance and bad governance. Bad governance includes governance which can be abused, for example in PoS. I'm very critical of PoS because it's going into a different direction compared to Bitcoin. Rich stakers will be able to abuse it. I'm sure we'll get a big discussion around it some time later, maybe in 2 - 50 years.
Of course, PoS is also having advantages but I'm not convinced yet.
About paying the salaries, unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done, unless going to jail for not paying taxes.
If there hasn't been a free and democratic vote (like North Korea) of our current government, paying taxes is voluntarily. 
Or we should establish such a rule globally.
A government can serve the people more effectively than the free market sometimes, and be free market friendly at the same time.
I can agree here and in my opinion it's essential to be able as a citized to vote out your government regularly if you government is abusing power. Bitcoin can be a part of checks and balances. Independant courts, a strong constitution or transparency against corporate corruption. For example in North Korea, there are no checks and balances at all. It's a failed Communist state led by Kim Jong Un. Kim Jong Un can't be voted out, he's a maniac. People are piss poor. I would not want to live there. Checks and balances are very important and Bitcoin can be part of this and should be part of this in my opinion.
But I'm not an economist, so I'm not qualified to make a suggestion here.